Could you explain this to us. I would have no idea why after reading the context of the OP and what your views mean.

Have a look at the prayer for relief of the first amended complaint, the MSJ briefs, and the appellant's opening brief for starters, and see if you can come up with a counter argument. Not trying to be a dick here, just trying to steer you in the right direction.

OK; I think I understand what happened, but it seems that we have only speculation as to what happens next. I think the confusion regarding this development amongst the CGN rank and file is due to the fact that most of us donít know enough about legal procedure to ask the right questions; and those who do know enough already know the answers.

Questions:

Can the ninth circuit still combine Peruta and Prieto if it wants? We have had much speculation about what they should do, and what they probably will do; much of it sounding to me like whistling in the grave yard. What I would like to know is; what is the worst they can do.

Can the AG still get involved in Prieto as a defendant if it is combined with Peruta?

If it is not combined and they remand Peruta can the court direct the plaintiff in Peruta to clean up its case and do its notifications, and then, if the AG gets involved, say they must wait for the outcome in Peruta before they rule in Prieto?

If they can and do combine the cases, can Prieto be remanded back in conjunction with Peruta, even though Gura did everything correctly?

Please; not what should happen or might happen, but what is the worst case scenario?

I donít think the 9th gives a fig about doing the right thing. They donít want to find for us and they know we want them to find against us. So what is their most productive tactic? Delay us!

The pertinent judges of the 9th knew what happened. Why did Gura have to splain it to them again? Why the **** grenade one week before orals? I smell a rat!

We just had judges assigned to the panel. So why would anyone be issuing orders before last week outside of the Clerk. And I am pretty sure telling us what do at our oral arguments goes beyond the scope of her duties. I am beginning to think that this is essentially a public admonishment more than anything else. Although it is going to eat into arguments for them.

I have been before Judge Thomas twice and won twice (once quite recently). He adhered to the letter of the law both times. He resisted the "feel good" result advocated by liberal groups and the state of California. He will play it straight. More than that, one cannot reasonably ask.

Peruta copycatted Sykes, which was the original name of Richards v. Prieto before Sykes & the Sacramento defendants were dropped from the case due to Sacramento's change in policy. Mr. Peruta was the only plaintiff on the case between September of 2009 & March of 2010.

Dot dot dot, Blah Blah Blah.

Thanks for the breakdown Gray!

__________________My AR is 7.62x39, so that if/when we get invaded, I can shoot their ammo back at them!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Where is this ammo "Black market" he speaks of? Do they have .223 in stock?

It would be fair to say that my stance has moderated on the issue hearing from esqappellate, who has a lot more experience with federal appellate procedure doing what he does than you do, or Michel for that matter.

Not trying to pick a fight with you... But according to some of your questions to Gray, it seems you imply that the District Court had some responsibility to notify the state (since it would seem awkward to me for the District Judge to just sit there and watch the Plaintiff make these errors without doing something), and that is what I was thinking as well, so if that were the case, wouldn't it be predictable for the Ninth Circuit to remand Peruta with instructions based on that issue?

No, that would be illogical and very unlikely. The 9th circuit has jurisdiction regardless of the failure to notify under rule 5.1. An appellate court may remand a case to the district court under rule 5.1 where notice was not given and where the parties defending that constitutionality of the statute have waived or abandoned various arguments in district court, including the appropriate standard of review, the possibility of a saving construction, and the interests served by the statute.

Absent some indication of harm or prejudice to the State's opportunity to fully present its views however, belated certification, while not ideal, is sufficient to honor the purpose of the federal statute.
Furthermore, there is general agreement that rule 5.1 should not be ignored, but, at least where the constitutionality of the statute has been upheld, there is no practical purpose to be served in remanding. Merrill v. Town of Addison, 763 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1985). This makes sense when you consider the purpose of the rule. If the constitutionality was upheld it makes for a very difficult argument that the government's position was not well represented. Since both Peruta and Richards are appealing a loss there is almost no chance at all of a remand, regardless of a failure by both plaintiffs and (apparently?) both district courts to notify/certify.

Are you sort of answering my question what authority is there that 5.1 notice must be given when "challenging how a state law is interpreted"? lol.

How about putting your money where your mouth is on the claims in your chicken little post? How much do you want to bet that there is no remand on 2403/5.1?

I don't make bets with fake named people, "Fabio". When I made a bet in re a steak dinner for someone getting their license by January 1, 2014, we at least had the courtesy to exchanging real names for the bet. Something tells me that you won't do that.

I don't make bets with fake named people, "Fabio". When I made a bet in re a steak dinner for someone getting their license by January 1, 2014, we at least had the courtesy to exchanging real names for the bet. Something tells me that you won't do that.

Ask a mod to hold the money, I'll send a money order. Your "horror show" isn't going to play out I'm afraid lol.

There will be impact to all three cases though as Paul Clement and Alan Gura will have to devote precious time to addressing this issue when it should have been spent on the substantive issues. I just wonder what Paul Clement is saying to the rest of the counsel on his team right now.

There will be impact to all three cases though as Paul Clement and Alan Gura will have to devote precious time to addressing this issue when it should have been spent on the substantive issues. I just wonder what Paul Clement is saying to the rest of the counsel on his team right now.

Is it your implication that oral arguments are usually (or ever) determinative in United States circuit courts, particularly when dealing with constitutional questions?

Is it your implication that oral arguments are usually (or ever) determinative in United States circuit courts, particularly when dealing with constitutional questions?

You actually did make me chuckle a little.

I'm no expert on such stuff, but some time ago I came to the conclusion that orals at the circuit and SCOTUS levels are mostly window dressing. But they perpetuate the myth that the orals are very important and people are continually suckered.

__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.

I'm no expert on such stuff, but some time ago I came to the conclusion that orals at the circuit and SCOTUS levels are mostly window dressing. But they perpetuate the myth that the orals are very important and people are continually suckered.

We send postcards to the courts, thanking them for an occasion to meet each other.

Is it your implication that oral arguments are usually not (or never) determinative in federal courts of appeals, particularly when dealing with constitutional questions?

-Brandon

Yes, of course. While the United States legal system is derived from that of the British commonwealth and its oral adversarial traditions, I think you will find almost universal agreement among practicing attorneys today that written briefs usually determine the outcome of cases in modern courts, particularly appellate courts considering constitutional questions.

Yes, of course. While the United States legal system is derived from that of the British commonwealth and its oral adversarial traditions, I think you will find almost universal agreement among practicing attorneys today that written briefs usually determine the outcome of cases in modern courts, particularly appellate courts considering constitutional questions.

Usually is not never or always and almost universal is not unanimous. So it doesn't look like you disagree with wolfwood after all.

-Brandon

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Usually is not never or always and almost universal is not unanimous. So it doesn't look like you disagree with wolfwood after all.

-Brandon

I believe you may be presenting a False Continuum. While there may surely be some exceptions to the rule here, it is absurd to ascribe them any great significance absent some evidence that oral arguments will carry an unusual weight in these cases.

As I said before, absent some tactical reason for not giving notice (as has been alleged to exist), it is my opinion that it should have been given. It is not however, a significant factor in either case.

Interestingly, the worst case scenario seems to have been achieved in the Richards case, where notice was given (possibly eliminating any theoretical tactical advantage), but the notice was materially deficient (possibly precluding compliance with rule 5.1).

I believe you may be presenting a False Continuum. While there may surely be some exceptions to the rule here, it is absurd to ascribe them any great significance absent some evidence that oral arguments will carry an unusual weight in these cases.

As I said before, absent some tactical reason for not giving notice (as has been alleged to exist), it is my opinion that it should have been given. It is not however, a significant factor in either case.

Interestingly, the worst case scenario seems to have been achieved in the Richards case, where notice was given (possibly eliminating any theoretical tactical advantage), but the notice was materially deficient (possibly precluding compliance with rule 5.1).

This may be a dumb question, but did you mean "worse case" instead of the "worst case" you typed?

If it were "worst case" I'd imagine that you expect dire consequences for the deficiency but you indicated previously that you didn't think the issue would be significant in either case.

I suspect (and hope) it was just a typo.

__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.

Interestingly, the worst case scenario seems to have been achieved in the Richards case, where notice was given (possibly eliminating any theoretical tactical advantage), but the notice was materially deficient (possibly precluding compliance with rule 5.1).

Could you please clarify in what way it was deficient?

As I mentioned earlier, when FGG shows up, the battle of egos starts raging from all sides. While there is an undeniable entertainment value in it, the informative value tends to go down with all "oh, yeah, tell me this" and "are you saying that."

Most of us are just trying to figure out what the status is and whether there are any serious procedural issues that can lead to long delays. Anything else that we can learn about the process is a pure bonus.

This may be a dumb question, but did you mean "worse case" instead of the "worst case" you typed?

If it were "worst case" I'd imagine that you expect dire consequences for the deficiency but you indicated previously that you didn't think the issue would be significant in either case.

I did mean worst case, but allow me to clarify the limits of my opinion. Given the ability to notify, or not to notify, and the belief in a tactical advantage in not notifying, with regard to effects of rule 5.1 one the case, the worst possible scenario would be to give notice, but to have it be deficient. You get the worst of both worlds, so to speak.

The effect of the "worst case scenario" however, given rule 5.1 and those facts, is unlikely to have any significant effect on the outcome of the case, for the reasons I already mentioned.

As I mentioned earlier, when FGG shows up, the battle of egos starts raging from all sides. While there is an undeniable entertainment value in it, the informative value tends to go down with all "oh, yeah, tell me this" and "are you saying that."

Most of us are just trying to figure out what the status is and whether there are any serious procedural issues that can lead to long delays. Anything else that we can learn about the process is a pure bonus.

If you read rule 5.1 you will see exactly two requirements for notice (not including time and manner of delivery):

1. The notice must state the constitutional question raised and;

2. The notice must identify the paper that raises it.

If you carefully examine the notice linked to in the OP, as sent by certified mail, you will see that it fails to meet the second requirement.

As an aside, I'm not sure what all the chest thumping around here is about, it seems clear to me that we are all on the same side.

Guys, this is all some personal agenda crap. This is some kind of smear campaign. The evidence is that the first 4 posts on this thread were from Gene, Brandon, and Gray, all three of them are hanging in there to do nothing more than trash a couple people (who you'd think would be considered all on the same progun team), they aren't giving all the facts, this Fabio guy has a whole different story...

I don't know what is going on here, but it is all someone's agenda. Don't let them make you part of their agenda. I only know what is on this thread, but I can smell the BS right through the computer screen. Disregard this entire thread and move on. We could use far fewer jr-wanna-be-lawyers and Hoffman sycophants and far more activists.

Back away from the calguns and go teach some people how to shoot and/or volunteer for a pro-gun politician or candidate. The rest of this is all a waste of time.

Which rule is that? You're the one who started asking for bets, and then you took the anon coward route.

I need to be careful, last time I tried to defend myself against this kind of forum rule violation I got banned! If you change your mind and want to put money on whether your dire predictions will come through, just say the word, pick your escrow agent, and I will send a money order ASAP. lol.

Guys, this is all some personal agenda crap. This is some kind of smear campaign. The evidence is that the first 4 posts on this thread were from Gene, Brandon, and Gray, all three of them are hanging in there to do nothing more than trash a couple people (who you'd think would be considered all on the same progun team), they aren't giving all the facts, this Fabio guy has a whole different story...

I don't know what is going on here, but it is all someone's agenda. Don't let them make you part of their agenda. I only know what is on this thread, but I can smell the BS right through the computer screen. Disregard this entire thread and move on. We could use far fewer jr-wanna-be-lawyers and Hoffman sycophants and far more activists.

Back away from the calguns and go teach some people how to shoot and/or volunteer for a pro-gun politician or candidate. The rest of this is all a waste of time.

Spare us the conspiracy theories.

You say talking about the facts surrounding a case that is public record and asking questions about it is a smear campaign, and then proceed to talk trash.

clearly i am not disputing the facts of this. of course it actually happened.
i am dismissing the opinions and insults in the comments that followed. and suggesting time is better spent for our cause by bringing new people into the fold rather than sitting around reading internet gossip and getting caught up in the agendas of three men.

That line of conversation is off topic for any thread outside of OT. Let us please restrain our Imps of the Perverse.

Examples

The Imp of the Perverse is also exemplified in The Bad Glazier, a prose poem by Charles Baudelaire.
The concept also figures prominently in the motives of Jack Shaftoe, a swashbuckling protagonist in Neal Stephenson's trilogy The Baroque Cycle:
But here was a rare opportunity for stupidity even more flagrant and glorious.
Now, Bob, who'd been observing Jack carefully for many years, had observed that when these moments arrived, Jack was almost invariably possessed by something that Bob had heard about in Church called the Imp of the Perverse. Bob was convinced that the Imp of the Perverse rode invisibly on Jack's shoulder whispering bad ideas into his ear, and that the only counterbalance was Bob himself, standing alongsides counseling good sense, prudence, caution, and other Puritan virtues.
But Bob was in England.

clearly i am not disputing the facts of this. of course it actually happened.
i am dismissing the opinions and insults in the comments that followed. and suggesting time is better spent for our cause by bringing new people into the fold rather than sitting around reading internet gossip and getting caught up in the agendas of three men.

The only agenda here is to show examples to the wider world of why duplicative, unnecessary, and unwarranted lawsuits by people who are not competent in strategic civil rights litigation, endangers all of our freedoms and liberties.

When it comes to litigation, NRA-ILA aligned persons such as Chuck Michel, Paul Clement, and Steven Halbrook has done a tremendous amount of professional discourtesy, and done terrible jobs at protecting 2A-related civil liberties.

From the beginning, NRA-ILA aligned civil litigators did everything possible to keep what was to become District of Columbia v. Heller (it was called Parker v. District of Columbia at the time), including filing sham litigation that was Seegars v. Ashcroft. That was Stephen Halbrook. They then later twice tried to get Congress to repeal the DC handgun ban, mooting the case. Only Virginia Tech stopped that train.

Fast forward a year. They (NRA-ILA) file unnecessarily duplicative litigation against the city of Chicago, using themselves as the lead plaintiffs, interfering at every step with McDonald v. City of Chicago

Paul Clement, in professional discourtesy, told the Supreme Court, in his position as former Solicitor General of the United States, now on behalf of the NRA, that Gura did not argue enough on substantive due process, which was provably false. The NRA's view did not gain them 5 votes in the Supreme Court, as Justice Thomas would not have joined a substantive due process ruling and we would have lost.

It is believed that certain personalities that control the NRA was afraid of the penumbras of civil liberties that a resurrected P&I clause in the 14th amendment would engender.

NRA ILA against the 18-21 year old bans on purchasing handguns from an FFL, and carry between 18-21, before even the carry issue was resolved. These cases should have never been pursued.

They get the rare wins, like Shawn Gowder in Chicago, which netted the NRA lawyers $125K. When NRA-ILA got a check from the City of Chicago for $1.3 million dollars, they got it because Gura made the argument that got the magic 5th Justice that was needed in McDonald (That would be Justice Thomas).

Benson v. City of Chicago, total handgun sales ban & 8 other things. Mr. Gura & Mr. Sigale were able to get the total range ban tossed and give strong precedent in the 7th Circuit. NRAILA's Bensen litigation is still in a quagmire down below.

ILA generally doesn't know how to litigate, because they are the institute for LEGISLATIVE action.

When you have a long history of litigation failures, it only informs what is going on with the Peruta litigation.

Also, litigation in re the state AB962 litigation. Yes we as gun owners won the preliminary injunction, but there was such sloppiness after the injunction that despite usually getting attorneys fees under the California fee recovery statute, Michel & Associates did NOT get their fees back, which means the money doesn't go back to the NRA-ILA & CRPAF.

Unfortunately, the NRA-ILA does stupid things for fundraising purposes, and continually rewards failure. It's no wonder they parachuted in Clement.